Re: Bug#399608: fixed in sysvinit 2.88dsf-59.1
[I've trimmed the CCes a bit.]
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:52:12PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> wrote:
> > Hello Adrian!
> >
> > Thanks for raising awareness about this issue. If there's anything
> > I can do to help please tell me. That the new util-linux version hasn't
> > been built yet sounds like it can't be avoided as it was just uploaded
> > and unfortunately the sysvinit and util-linux update is a lockstep
> > upgrade where both change at the same time as things are moved between
> > the packages. There's no intermediate step possible, because the
> > moved binaries always needs to be available at all times and thus
> > have tight dependencies in both directions. Not sure how dependencies
> > affects the build of these packages though.... They should both be
> > able to build on systems with older versions of the packages installed
> > and build independently.
>
> that sounds like the kind of thing that would cause nightmare
> circular build dependencies for anyone porting to a new architecture
> [which i'm considering doing: mvp from icubecorp].
>
> would that be correct - that if there *is* no "older version" it
> would now be impossible to build both [or either] of the packages - or
> am i mistaken?
It's not normally that bad. Old packages exist in snapshot.d.o. In
the case of util-linux that the original poster talks about, the old
version of util-linux is still in the chroots of the buildd, its just
that wanna-build no longer knows about that version so does not offer
util-linux for building, so one has to manually schedule a build and
binary upload.
The situation is different for boot strapping a new architecture.
There are quite a number of circular build-dependencies and one breaks
the circle with a variety of techniques, one of which is cross-building.
Cheers
Michael.
Reply to: